Jump to content

DirkDiggler

Supreme User
  • Posts

    820
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    15

Posts posted by DirkDiggler

  1. This was all that was left of that Silk Airways IL-76.  If you blow the pics up you can see part of horizontal stab, besides some other small debris and the black impact mark that was all that was left.

    DSC03532.JPG

    DSC03533.JPG

    • Like 2
  2. 1 hour ago, FourFans said:

    Got that same experience back in OIF.  Also had one of our crews watch one fly directly into a mountainside near Bagram.  Apparently ATC told them there was co-altitude terrain and they responded "we see everything" shortly before merging with said terrain.  That's why US troops were never allowed to fly on them.

    I had just taken off from Bagram when that happened.  Explosion lit up the whole valley.  I tried telling ATC that I thought I’d just seen a plane hit the ridge out west, ATC comes back with “are you sure you’re not seeing the AC-130 tweaking on the range”.  We had a mission to fly and I didn’t feel like arguing.  
     

    Couple days later we found the crash site and orbited a couple times to take some pictures.  Nothing but a hole in the ground with tail laying nearby.  Nobody from Silk Airways, the Afghans, or the US ever went up there to my knowledge.

  3. 2 hours ago, Danger41 said:

    Not a mobility guy but what’s the elevator speech of who is responsible for what in an airdrop? Who rigs the chutes, QC’s them, etc? AC ultimately responsible for that or not?

    Most DZ Surveys have a blurb on them that states "Supported unit commander accepts responsibility for damage to equipment, property, and/or injury to personnel on and around the DZ."  So if I drop a bundle that lands on the DZ and it crushes some poor solider/HUMVEE/civilian that happens to be running towards an aid bundle, that not on me.  If I toss a bundle off DZ and it's something I screwed up, and it hits something bad, that's the fault of the crew.  An Air Drop Review Panel (bod bomb board) investigates, will figure out what happened, and assigned responsibility as required.

    44 minutes ago, uhhello said:

    From what I have read and seen mentioned here is the type of 'rigs' used in this drop were throw-away chutes and have a high failure rate.  

    Looking at the video it looked like LCHV or Low-Cost High Velocity chutes.  Them and their cousin Lost-Cost Low Velocity were developed during Afghanistan due to the high numbers of airdrops we were conducting.  They're basically a trash bag factory chute that's plopped on top of a pre-formed container; they do have a high failure rate compared to other types of chutes (though I've personally never had one burn in, I've had lots of LCLV fail).  All of the container and rigging materials are thrown away after airdrop unlike a standard CDS where most things are reused.

      I've dropped LCHV around half a dozen times in Afghanistan and Syria; they're actually pretty good at going where they're supposed to (at least in my experience and unlike LCLV, which can blow all over the place) but you wouldn't want to be anywhere near where they're landing.  I think the Rate of Fall on them is around 60 feet/second, which is screaming in for a bundle.

    • Upvote 2
  4. 31 minutes ago, Danger41 said:

    I’ll tell you this that the AAD thing is back with a vengeance. I BFM’d that requirement to O-5 DO gig and then went from top Strat to bottom 1/3 for next rack and stack. When I asked why they said that since that’s a requirement for O-6 and not having one shows you don’t want to be an O-6, they don’t want you to be a commander since that’s a step to O-6. Sigh.

    Thats fucking horseshit.  AF leadership has already stated they're having/going to have a problem producing & retaining qualified people for Sq command; now they're back to levying an artificial requirement for command that will drive more good people away.

    • Upvote 2
  5. 1 hour ago, Swizzle said:

    Only to hire them back? Who else is qualified!?

    What news...

    CAE currently has the contract; it was just re-bid and awarded to a company called ATC.  Someone protested, so the ATC can’t do anything until the protest is resolved.  Government asked CAE to bridge the contract until the protest is resolved.  CAE said sure, give us X number of dollars to do it.  Government said we’re not gonna give you anything, CAE said great, dueces, and laid everybody off.

    • Confused 1
  6. 13 hours ago, MechGov said:

    Exactly this. There aren't many uniformed MWS guys in HQ AFSOC left (maybe a half dozen/MWS). It's a struggle between the bureaucracy, lots of change, and CC pet projects/good ideas. It doesn't help when the boss threatens to fire anyone who doesn't quickly implement his 50% more BS, 50% less FTU product. Ironically, it really seems to take a while to implement all this change when there's no uniforms left in the building to staff all these "priorities."

    Also, I feel it for the 'favored' community getting kicked in the teeth with more with less taskings, picking up FTU training, and one of the core mission events considered non-essential.

    Sent from my SM-G781U1 using Tapatalk
     

    I've got some buddies up there that are trying to effect change/do the right thing where they can, but agree with everything you wrote above.  I've never seen this level of thrash/the HQ reaching into line units directly.  I honestly think the only thing that would satisfy the guy is every -130 and person in the unit fully committed 100% of the time.

      On an another fucked up note, CAE just laid off 100% of the MC-J CIs at Kirtland two days ago.  That's really gonna do wonders for PFT production/shortening the pipeline like CAT 5 was adamant about. 

    • Like 1
  7. 12 hours ago, McJay Pilot said:

    320th STS/CC fired at Kadena and there’s a data dump on FB here, that reads similar to the 27 SOG/CC’s rebuttal from awhile back.

    I know a lot of the names mentioned, it’ll be interesting to hear what all they have to say. 

    Also, that’s the second Sq/CC fired from the 353rd SOW in 4 months.  1st SOS commander was fired back in November with no cause or details that were made public.  Must be something in the water over there.

  8. 52 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

    I remember Dag when he was the 58 SOW OG when I was at Kirtland.  What’s your take on him?  If remember correctly he was one of the Olmsted scholar types?

    You’re correct he was an Olmstead guy, Czech Republic if I remember right.

      Dang Anderson is all about Dag Anderson, first and foremost.  Smart guy, but a straight politician who’s out for #1.  He’s better than having CAT 5 in the seat, but that’s not saying much.

    • Upvote 2
  9. 4 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

    Ironic that it took and an Army GO to end this clown.  Hearing USAFA is NOT a done deal.

    Also heard next AFSOC/CC will be a bit of a surprise...someone jumping the line.

    Well, when one of your first initiatives as MAJCOM CC involves trying to kill the SOCOM 4 day holiday weekends, you're gonna leave an impression.  Just probably not the one he was hoping for.

      Our sewing circle thought the next guy in the seat would be Farrell, or possibly Matrie.  I get the impression that AFSOC's GO bench isn't that deep right now, but I could be wrong.  If they're jumping someone ahead I'd be curious to see who; that also sounds a bit ominous given there's several young AFSOC GOs that I haven't been too impressed with.

    • Like 1
  10. 4 hours ago, SocialD said:

     

    WUT?  If I were an OG or above, and I had a SQ/CC that handed out more than a one CC directed Q3s, I'd be wanting some explanations.  More than a few and I'm probably setting aside a day to go through them all with the SQ/CC.  34!?!?!  I'd probably removed the guy because clearly he doesn't know how to lead.  In my entire career, I know of exactly one Q3 that happened while I was in the squadron.  That was during the B-Course where a dude Q-3'd his first form 8 ride for some serious buffoonery on ground ops.  ...ended up being a patch, so it didn't hurt him too bad.  I've never seen a single command directed Q-3, though I know of one case that warranted one lol. 

     

    Anyway, this doesn't sound like a guy I'd want in charge of our future AF leaders.  This sounds like a great time for a community wide "dear boss" letter.  The last thing we need is his style influencing USAFA cadets and permeating throughout the AF.  This is a great time for all you dudes about to bail from service to start a grass roots movement and make one more positive impact on the AF.  You're always allowed to talk to your congressman.  

    It was quite a rough period for that Sq, for sure.  I don't disagree that he shouldn't be leading anything or anyone.  That period in AFSOC in general was real stupid; the command almost seemed like they were trying to out-AMC AMC with the number of Q3s that were being handed out.   

      That said, I personally think that he'd do less harm at USAFA than his current position, but that's just one guy's opinion.

      While I appreciate the sentiment regarding the "Dear Boss" letter, CAT 5 doesn't and won't give a shit about something like that.  At all.  If anything he'd probably track down the guy or gal who wrote it, delay their retirement pending some type of investigation, and try to give them an Article 15 for insubordination or some such nonsense.  I kid, but not really.

      I personally believe that at the upper echelons of leadership the AF knows exactly the problems it has; they're just either unable or unwilling to take actual steps to address it.  CAT 5 being a case in point.  After he put an Osprey in the trees as a Grp/CC, his wing commander told the AFSOC/CC "I can fix him".  Nothing happened, and now fast forward 12 years we're all dealing with the fallout.

    • Upvote 1
  11. 53 minutes ago, Danger41 said:

    From a former AFSOC guy still tangentially attached, I can tell you that the command (line flying bros O-5 and down) seem afraid of their own shadow and a culture of Uber compliance has replaced that warrior spirit from the GWOT generation. Pretty sure that’s deliberate and starts from the top down. Honestly, pretty disappointing.

      There's some of that, for sure.  Definitely seems like some guys are leading scared.  Since CAT 5 gave out 34 CC directed Q3s in his time as a Sq/CC and isn't averse to firing people, if you're a careerist CC in AFSOC right now you can see that logic (not that I agree with it).

      A lot of the mishaps/buffoonery I referenced above isn't coming from that; its coming from either ignorance or in several cases willful disregard of regs.  AFSOC is extremely lucky that there hasn't been more death/injury up to this point.  

      In my MWS, I'm seriously concerned that CAT 5 is willfully marching my community towards Class As.  We're about to have an almost 50% reduction in the SOI at the schoolhouse, they're also going to stop teaching several METLs that I'd argue are core to our mission sets.  These METLs will now have to be taught at the Sq, where we're younger than we've ever been; some of them are also the more risky things we do.  We're also about to start getting pilots direct from the T-6 track on a shortened syllabus with less hours and experience.

      CAT 5 is pushing more and more risk to the line Sq/CCs without giving them any additional resources (beyond trying to throw a shitload of additional flight hours our way) to try and fix the experience problem.  Most of the ideas he's pitching/implementing (large increase in flight hours, large increase in MQF test questions, pushing training onus onto ops Sqs that are ill equipped to conduct it) aren't fixing anything; in many cases it's going to make things worse, at least WRT retention and risk.  The guys in HQ seem like they either don't care or are just trying to keep their heads down since if they speak up they'll get shot in the face anyway.  

      Apologies for the long post and possible thread derail.

    • Like 2
  12. 15 hours ago, Danger41 said:

    Something to do with CV-22’s?

    Honestly don’t know, this is all coming out of the HQ and I don’t work there so it’s second hand info.  There’s speculation that it’s tied to that but that’s all firm as jello.  
      There’s been a lot more buffoonery/mishaps across the command in the last year then what’s made the news, could be related to that.
      There’s a CV-22 all call this coming week at HRT where they’re supposedly discussing the way ahead WRT that community.

  13. 8 minutes ago, whiskeychevelle said:

    Rumor is going to USAFA. Sorry cadets 

    I’d argue that the cadets are young and will bounce back.  They probably don’t give a shit who is in charge at the top as they’re just trying to keep their heads down and graduate.

      Much better him there as opposed to his current position where he’s doing his level best to completely trash/fuck up every part of AFSOC.  The level of thrash in the command right now cause of him is the worst I’ve seen in 20+ years.

    • Like 1
    • Sad 1
    • Upvote 1
  14. On 2/15/2024 at 7:29 AM, brabus said:

    The actual staff can’t even “A-staff”well, but I’m sure the wing level will nail it.

    Ha!  Maybe so.  I get that new things/changes sometimes take a while to implement and function correctly but right now getting the same RFIs 3-4 times a day from the same part of the A-staff cause they're not talking to each other and whatever O-5 happens to have a burr up his ass about said RFI making the most important thing in the world is kinda frustrating.  I AFSOC fucked up by not having the A-3 be an O-6; probably wouldn't have been able to find another O-6 to come to CVS anyway.

  15. Seems kinda Army-esque, at least with regards to how the proposed garrison/base commander and combat wing commander is being proposed.  Ditto with reorg of MAJCOMs.

      In other news the move to A Staffs/groupless wings seems to be going swimmingly at my location/s.  So far from what I can tell the A Staffs' primary purpose is to annoy the shit out of the line units with RFIs that they could answer themselves if they put 2 minutes of effort into it.  Who knows, maybe it'll get better.

  16. 8 minutes ago, SocialD said:

     

     

    Honestly this read like a plan you'd create if you wanted to look like you're doing something, but don't actually want it to work.  Maybe it gives them to something to point at and say "see, we tried," I guess it's on to stop loss lol

    Maybe the Bobs accidentally selected the throwaway COA and no one on staff spoke up…..

    • Haha 5
  17. 26 minutes ago, uhhello said:

    I honestly can't come up with a scenario where someone would do this.  Financially or quality of life wise.  

    I’m getting ready to retire this year after 21 and change.  If the no shit ballon would go up with China, Iran, or Russia I’d do this, but probably nothing before that scenario.

  18. Can't speak to the renovation piece but we just went through this at my location WRT to alcohol consumption at the Sq.  Have your Sq/CC draft an MFR stating where/when in the Sq people can booze.  Have him put a blurb in there at the end that says something to the effect of "or any other location/time that the Sq/CC deems appropriate".  You should be gtg after that. 

×
×
  • Create New...